Texas Tech

2-0AP #13
Latest
NFL denies supplemental draft for Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsbyour readTexas Tech lands three-star tight end Zayden Smithour readThe Texas rivalry

Big 12 · Joey McGuire, year 5 (37-18) · Jones AT&T Stadium · 60,454 · 60,229 avg in 2026

The nationAP #13 · Coaches #12no change
The model#8 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #14 (+18.9) · FPI #16
The marketTexas Tech by 7.5vs Houston · our model 69% Texas Tech · a number, not a pick

LastW 35–24 at Oregon State · Sat Sep 12 · Ben Roberts 1 sacks, 1.5 TFL, 10 tackles

Nextvs Houston · Fri Sep 18 · 8 pm ET · Jones AT&T Stadium · Texas Tech by 7.5 · series 17-18-1, won the last 7 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
34.0
Pts allowed/game
17.0
Total yards/gm#78 / 138 · 44th pct
411.5
Rush yards/gmT-#78 / 138 · 43rd pct
164.0
Pass yards/gm#63 / 138 · 55th pct
247.5
Yards allowed/gmT-#74 / 138 · 46th pct
333.0
Rush yds allowed/gm#13 / 138 · 91st pct
65.0
SacksT-#38 / 138 · 65th pct
5
InterceptionsT-#29 / 115 · 61st pct
2
3rd-down convT-#47 / 138 · 66th pct
46.4%
All 91 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
823411.5/gm5.60/play#78 / 138 · 44th pct#45 / 69 · 36th pct#14 / 16 · 16th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
666333.0/gm5.05/playT-#74 / 138 · 46th pct#52 / 69 · 25th pct#15 / 16 · 9th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
328164.0/gm2.23/playT-#78 / 138 · 43rd pctT-#41 / 69 · 41st pct#14 / 16 · 16th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
13065.0/gm0.98/play#13 / 138 · 91st pct#12 / 69 · 83rd pct#3 / 16 · 84th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
8542.5/gmT-#30 / 138 · 78th pct#15 / 69 · 79th pct#7 / 16 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
4824.0/gm#7 / 138 · 95th pct#6 / 69 · 92nd pct#2 / 16 · 91st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
52.5/gmT-#35 / 138 · 70th pctT-#23 / 69 · 60th pctT-#8 / 16 · 47th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
00.0/gmT-#1 / 138 · 92nd pctT-#1 / 69 · 88th pctT-#1 / 16 · 88th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
495247.5/gm3.37/play#63 / 138 · 55th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#10 / 16 · 41st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
536268.0/gm4.06/playT-#116 / 138 · 16th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#15 / 16 · 9th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
6231.0/gmT-#59 / 138 · 57th pctT-#33 / 69 · 51st pctT-#6 / 16 · 62nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
8442.0/gmT-#125 / 138 · 9th pctT-#64 / 69 · 7th pct#16 / 16 · 3rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
4723.5/gmT-#36 / 138 · 73rd pctT-#17 / 69 · 74th pctT-#4 / 16 · 75th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5025.0/gm#125 / 138 · 10th pct#64 / 69 · 8th pct#16 / 16 · 3rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
31.5/gmT-#72 / 138 · 41st pctT-#44 / 69 · 30th pctT-#11 / 16 · 19th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#75 / 138 · 36th pctT-#47 / 69 · 22nd pctT-#10 / 16 · 22nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating
Team
152.4152.4#45 / 115 · 61st pct#30 / 59 · 50th pct#9 / 14 · 39th pct#2 / 13 · 92nd pct
Opp
122.5122.5#42 / 91 · 54th pct#26 / 41 · 38th pct#6 / 10 · 45th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team
10.5/gmT-#52 / 138 · 49th pctT-#25 / 69 · 53rd pctT-#7 / 16 · 50th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#77 / 138 · 33rd pctT-#40 / 69 · 29th pctT-#11 / 16 · 25th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
52.5/gmT-#38 / 138 · 65th pctT-#21 / 69 · 60th pctT-#6 / 16 · 53rd pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#74 / 138 · 37th pctT-#42 / 69 · 30th pctT-#11 / 16 · 22nd pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
105.0/gmT-#79 / 138 · 38th pctT-#45 / 69 · 31st pctT-#12 / 16 · 25th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
126.0/gmT-#102 / 138 · 24th pctT-#56 / 69 · 15th pctT-#15 / 16 · 6th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
4824.0/gmT-#46 / 138 · 65th pctT-#31 / 69 · 54th pctT-#8 / 16 · 50th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3517.5/gmT-#61 / 138 · 54th pctT-#43 / 69 · 37th pct#13 / 16 · 22nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
136.5/gmT-#37 / 138 · 68th pctT-#19 / 69 · 67th pctT-#6 / 16 · 56th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
105.0/gmT-#66 / 138 · 48th pctT-#42 / 69 · 35th pctT-#10 / 16 · 28th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2814.0/gmT-#45 / 138 · 64th pctT-#19 / 69 · 70th pctT-#5 / 16 · 69th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3015.0/gmT-#89 / 138 · 31st pctT-#45 / 69 · 29th pctT-#11 / 16 · 28th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
21.0/gmT-#51 / 138 · 51st pctT-#28 / 69 · 49th pctT-#7 / 16 · 50th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#26 / 138 · 66th pctT-#15 / 69 · 62nd pctT-#4 / 16 · 62nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
21.0/gmT-#98 / 138 · 22nd pctT-#45 / 69 · 29th pct#11 / 16 · 34th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#80 / 138 · 36th pctT-#42 / 69 · 32nd pctT-#10 / 16 · 34th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
61:4730:54/gm#67 / 138 · 52nd pct#32 / 69 · 54th pct#9 / 16 · 47th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
58:1329:06/gm#58 / 138 · 58th pct#32 / 69 · 54th pct#9 / 16 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct

FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs

Player stats — 2026 season
Quarterbacks
Player#GCmp/AttPctYdsY/ATDINTRateZPRQBRAdj ANY/ASack%
+0.25 EPA/play15246 / 6076.7487
#49 FBS		8.121152.54564.47.16.2
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
+0.36 EPA/play20233187
#29 FBS		5.72
#43 FBS		38——
+0.01 EPA/play8224692.9112——
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
+0.81 EPA/play22911713031
+1.12 EPA/play3289211.5132

2026 stat leaders · Texas Tech

through 2 games

Ben Roberts leads Texas Tech with 15 tackles through 2 games.

1. Ben Roberts LB 15 tackles
2. J'Koby Williams RB 187 rushing yards
3. Will Hammond QB 487 passing yards
4. Austin Romaine LB 12 tackles
5. Malik Esquerra S 12 tackles
How They Play · 2025

Texas Tech fields an elite offense behind an elite, bend-don't-break defense.

Offense
82nd pct EPA/play
Defense
99th pct EPA allowed
Defensive shape
68th pct at limiting explosive plays

Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.

The Savant Card · Texas Tech · 2025

Texas Tech reads strongest in rushing epa allowed (top 1%) and epa allowed (top 2%); the crux lives in success rate, where Texas Tech sits at the 65th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.25
82nd
Success Rate +0.44
66th
Explosive Plays +1.33
77th
Rushing EPA +0.16
74th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed -0.07
99th
Success Rate Allowed +0.31
98th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.22
68th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.00
97th

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.38
78th
Rushing EPA Allowed -0.15
99th
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 14 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

Home-field advantage · Texas Tech · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Texas Tech is worth +5.0 points more at home than on the road.

Middle of FBS, 65th percentile of 133 programs

63% at home, 39% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (27–16 home, 16–25 away). Interval ±4.3.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, Texas Tech has beaten the number by +3.0 more at home than away over 72 games — inside the ±7.4 that many games can resolve. Results here cannot tell the flat number apart from the building, and that is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

Jones AT&T Stadium seats 60,454 and has averaged 95% full (57,674, 26 games reported). Visitors cover a median 486 miles to get here since 2018 — 57th-longest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. For the home side it is a home crowd more than a home town: only 6% of the 2026 roster (6 of 103 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 52 home games since 2018.

Home27–16Away16–25Edge+5.0 ±4.3Visitor trip486 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected

Texas Tech's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time

Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 89th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it climbs to the 91st — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.

league medianRaw 4th quarter · 89th pctileCompetitive snaps only · 91st pctileWorst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · CFBD play-by-play, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin

Standard downs vs. passing downs

Does Texas Tech hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

88th percentile success on standard downs, 48th on passing downs — a 40-point gap between the two.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantTexas TechWeak on standard downsElite on standard downsFalls apart off scheduleHolds up off scheduleHawai'i18th standard · 41st passingUNLV51st standard · 7th passingStanford76th standard · 15th passingEastern Michigan52nd standard · 10th passingSan José State54th standard · 22nd passingNew Mexico State45th standard · 75th passingSacramento State23rd standard · 14th passingOklahoma State41st standard · 49th passingDuke20th standard · 29th passingFlorida State28th standard · 65th passingRutgers30th standard · 71st passingKansas70th standard · 35th passingBoston College27th standard · 56th passingNorfolk State16th standard · 9th passingLouisville96th standard · 70th passingMissouri36th standard · 85th passingMemphis69th standard · 65th passingGeorgia Southern24th standard · 45th passingOle Miss94th standard · 50th passingJacksonville State65th standard · 82nd passingNorth Dakota State86th standard · 27th passingArizona92nd standard · 86th passingUSC97th standard · 99th passingWake Forest56th standard · 97th passingTCU93rd standard · 8th passingDelaware70th standard · 31st passingUAB65th standard · 81st passingMichigan State62nd standard · 29th passingSouth Florida91st standard · 52nd passingFlorida International46th standard · 43rd passingNavy98th standard · 59th passingWisconsin13th standard · 18th passingOregon State10th standard · 38th passingSyracuse48th standard · 64th passingOhio State90th standard · 40th passingBall State12th standard · 24th passingPittsburgh30th standard · 76th passingColorado35th standard · 77th passingGeorgia Tech58th standard · 44th passingAuburn75th standard · 55th passingBaylor40th standard · 96th passingNorth Texas49th standard · 68th passingApp State44th standard · 90th passingIowa State4th standard · 23rd passingUTSA99th standard · 29th passingArkansas60th standard · 80th passingBoise State58th standard · 46th passingOregon35th standard · 33rd passingTulsa56th standard · 1st passingTulane31st standard · 2nd passingPurdue83rd standard · 88th passingMiddle Tennessee87th standard · 68th passingVanderbilt80th standard · 12th passingSan Diego State4th standard · 40th passingLSU33rd standard · 98th passingClemson1st standard · 19th passingCentral Michigan16th standard · 6th passingTexas Tech88th standard · 48th passingMichigan2nd standard · 62nd passingWestern Michigan39th standard · 20th passingOhio38th standard · 17th passingBuffalo7th standard · 14th passingTexas72nd standard · 94th passingCoastal Carolina61st standard · 52nd passingColorado State82nd standard · 91st passingWyoming65th standard · 36th passingTexas A&M85th standard · 72nd passingLiberty14th standard · 59th passingFlorida Atlantic43rd standard · 87th passingLouisiana19th standard · 92nd passingSouth Alabama50th standard · 73rd passingTroy22nd standard · 59th passingSam Houston78th standard · 61st passingNevada77th standard · 52nd passingWestern Kentucky25th standard · 34th passingWashington State8th standard · 3rd passingWashington81st standard · 4th passingCalifornia9th standard · 25th passingCharlotte73rd standard · 83rd passingTennessee65th standard · 78th passingUtah State4th standard · 93rd passing
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, Connelly success-rate definition
View all FBS teams as a table
TeamStandard-downs percentilePassing-downs percentile
App State44th90th
Arizona92nd86th
Arkansas60th80th
Auburn75th55th
Ball State12th24th
Baylor40th96th
Boise State58th46th
Boston College27th56th
Buffalo7th14th
California9th25th
Central Michigan16th6th
Charlotte73rd83rd
Clemson1st19th
Coastal Carolina61st52nd
Colorado35th77th
Colorado State82nd91st
Delaware70th31st
Duke20th29th
Eastern Michigan52nd10th
Florida Atlantic43rd87th
Florida International46th43rd
Florida State28th65th
Georgia Southern24th45th
Georgia Tech58th44th
Hawai'i18th41st
Iowa State4th23rd
Jacksonville State65th82nd
Kansas70th35th
LSU33rd98th
Liberty14th59th
Louisiana19th92nd
Louisville96th70th
Memphis69th65th
Michigan2nd62nd
Michigan State62nd29th
Middle Tennessee87th68th
Missouri36th85th
Navy98th59th
Nevada77th52nd
New Mexico State45th75th
Norfolk State16th9th
North Dakota State86th27th
North Texas49th68th
Ohio38th17th
Ohio State90th40th
Oklahoma State41st49th
Ole Miss94th50th
Oregon35th33rd
Oregon State10th38th
Pittsburgh30th76th
Purdue83rd88th
Rutgers30th71st
Sacramento State23rd14th
Sam Houston78th61st
San Diego State4th40th
San José State54th22nd
South Alabama50th73rd
South Florida91st52nd
Stanford76th15th
Syracuse48th64th
TCU93rd8th
Tennessee65th78th
Texas72nd94th
Texas A&M85th72nd
Texas Tech88th48th
Troy22nd59th
Tulane31st2nd
Tulsa56th1st
UAB65th81st
UNLV51st7th
USC97th99th
UTSA99th29th
Utah State4th93rd
Vanderbilt80th12th
Wake Forest56th97th
Washington81st4th
Washington State8th3rd
Western Kentucky25th34th
Western Michigan39th20th
Wisconsin13th18th
Wyoming65th36th

Halftime identity

Texas Tech by half

1st-half offense ranks 49th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 60th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.

league median1st half · 49th pctile2nd half · 60th pctileWorst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin
Tendency driftHow this coordinator's calls have drifted since arriving.

Season by season

How Texas Tech’s current staff calls plays, year over year

Offense: Mack Leftwich (2025–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2025: 49% → 2026: 47% · 3-pt range · #174 of 184 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2025: 49% → 2026: 39% · 10-pt range · #126 of 182 · a typical amount
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Texas Tech

CFB Zeitgeist

#8

+10.7

SP+

#14

+18.9

FPI

#16

+16.1

Elo

#12

1845

The national models put Texas Tech between 12th and 16th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is higher on them than any of these models, at 8th.

National rank of 138 FBS teams · 2026 season. SP+/FPI/SRS published; Elo & CFB Zeitgeist ranked by rating.

Comparable teamsPrograms built like this one — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, roster size. Not a stat match.

Most similar programs · Texas Tech

Reads like

AkronMid-AmericanSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontApp StateSun BeltSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontArmyAmerican AthleticSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up front

Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.

Historical echoPrograms whose arc bent the same way -- then what happened.

Historical echo

Texas Tech’s breakout has happened before — and 4 of the 4 closest programs couldn’t hold it.

Programs whose stature climbed in the same shape. The grey line is their run; the color is what came next for them.

Oklahoma State 2007–2012
fell back
Air Force 1994–1999
fell back
Florida State 1964–1969
fell back
Kansas 2003–2008
fell back

An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.

ConditionsThe weather and altitude visitors have to deal with.
Venue texture

73°F average kickoff temp; 1% of games had measurable precipitation; 12 mph average wind.

Based on 77 home games with weather data.

This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site